TUR1/54[2001]

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS [CONSOLIDATION] ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT

The Parties:

B F A W U

and

Seabrook Potato Crisps Ltd

BACKGROUND

1.    The BFAWU (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC dated 9 March 2001 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by Seabrook Potato Crisps Ltd. (the Company) for all production workers, excluding supervisors, managers, office staff, van drivers and engineers employed at the Company's Princeville site.

2.    In accordance with section 263 of the 1992 Act, the CAC Chairman established a Panel to determine the case. The Panel consists of three members: Professor Roy Lewis as Deputy Chairman, and Dennis Cameron and David Crowe as Members. The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel and Parties is Margaret O'Grady.

3.    By a decision dated 23 March 2001, the Panel decided that the Union's application was admissible. Thereafter, the Parties were unable to reach agreement on the bargaining unit, despite two meetings held with ACAS. The Panel invited both Parties to attend a hearing and to provide the Panel with, and exchange, written submissions relating to the question of the appropriate bargaining unit. A hearing was held on 29 May 2001 in Leeds and the names of those who attended on behalf of the Parties are appended to this decision.

4.    The original Seabrook Crisps factory was founded in 1949 in Allerton, Bradford. The Company expanded locally during 1979/80, with a second factory sited in Princeville, which is less than two miles from Allerton within the Bradford conurbation. Both sites produce and process crisps. The Allerton site is responsible for the production and packaging of single pack crisps and is the location for the Head Office. The Princeville site is responsible for production and packaging of both single and multi-pack crisps. Princeville is the larger site with two production lines, compared with one production line at Allerton. The approximate total numbers of production staff is 56 at Allerton, and 175 at Princeville. The approximate total number of all employees, both production and non-production, is 321.

5.    At the hearing the Parties very helpfully clarified the difference between them. They agreed that the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit were the entire production staff, including part-timers and cleaners. The exclusions were also common ground, namely, supervisors, managers, office staff, drivers and engineers. The one issue in dispute was whether the appropriate bargaining unit was production workers at Princeville, as contended for by the Union, or production workers at both Princeville and Allerton, as contended for by the Company.

SUMMARY OF THE UNION CASE

6.    The Union stated that the appropriate bargaining unit was at the Princeville site only. This was where the Union's support was concentrated, including 53 members within a bargaining unit of 175 production workers and a total workforce of 207. Since February 2000 the Union has conducted a campaign to gain recognition for collective bargaining purposes. The Union had held a survey of non-union members to establish if they would support the Union in a ballot on recognition, and the number of non-members indicating their support was 54.

7.    The Union argued that there were significant differences between the Princeville and Allerton sites. These differences included: (a) differing flavourings - Princeville produced the relatively "bland" range of flavourings eg ready salted, whereas Allerton produced the "spicy" range eg tandoori; (b) Princeville had three "Sixer" machines for the production of multipack crisps, (6 packs), and Allerton had no such machines; (c) distribution was only from the Princeville site; and (d) Princeville had continuous production over the lunch break, supported by part time workers, whereas at Allerton the line shut during lunch breaks.

8.    The Union was unable to comment on whether or not there were differences in the terms and conditions of production workers on the two sites as it had had little contact with the Allerton workers. However, it believed that minders of the Sixers, which were only at Princeville, were paid a special bonus. It also believed that examples of mobility between the two sites among production workers only occurred during emergencies.

9.    The Union contended that the Princeville site would not constitute a fragmented unit since Princeville comprised the majority of the Company's workforce and could operate as a separate unit. It also did not believe that should another Union be recognised with regards to other workers in the Company that this would lead to fragmented bargaining.

10.    The Union's conclusion was that the single Princeville site would be compatible with effective management and satisfy the other statutory criteria.

SUMMARY OF COMPANY CASE

11.    The Company was of the view that the appropriate bargaining unit was one including all production workers covering both the Princeville and the Allerton sites. It accepted that there was one minor difference in the sites, namely, the Sixer machines were at Princeville only. They were operated by 12 staff on a rotating basis. In addition, there was one specialised Sixer machine minder, who was fully trained and received a bonus, and one who was undergoing training. There were no Sixer machines at the Allerton site only because of space restrictions. The Sixers apart, all production processes were identical. Both sites performed the same operations, that is, sampling, washing, slicing, cooking, inspection, flavouring, packing and boxing.

12.    As regards flavourings, different flavourings of crisps were produced at an individual site mainly due to the size of the demand, with smaller runs at Allerton and larger runs at Princeville. The mechanical process of adding the required flavouring was identical at either site. Both sites could produce crisps with any flavourings if required.

13.    While the majority of distribution was from Princeville, there was distribution from the Allerton site, with 7/8 vans going directly to customers such as shops, schools and pubs.

14.    Production workers at Princeville and Allerton had identical terms and conditions, save that their appointment letters indicated either Princeville or Allerton as the location of work. It was true that among the production workers, cleaners had different terms from the others, but the cleaners at Princeville were on the same terms as the cleaners at Allerton.

15.    As regards mobility between the sites among production workers, en bloc movements had occurred only in major refurbishments. However, Allerton production workers regularly did voluntary overtime at Princeville, and part-time workers at Princeville were a potential source of recruits for full-time vacancies at Allerton. Mobility among non-production workers was however a major feature. There was a formal rotation policy requiring movement between the two sites for the two factory managers, 3 of the 5 line supervisors and 7 of the 9 engineers. The two supervisors who did not rotate between the two sites had been given special dispensation not to do so on individual health grounds.

16.    The Company concluded its case by arguing that there was an established integrated management system and an established integrated production system and that all production workers constituted the "natural unit". Further, it argued that the Union's bargaining unit would be incompatible with effective management and produce fragmentation, that is, an opportunity for a competing union to request recognition at the Allerton site. It also believed that the Union wished only to nominate the Princeville site as this was where it was most likely to win a ballot.

CONSIDERATIONS

17.    Paragraph 19 (3) (a) and (b) of the Schedule requires the Panel to decide the appropriate bargaining unit and, in making that decision, to take into account the need for the bargaining unit to be compatible with effective management and the matters listed in paragraph 19(4) of the Schedule, in so far as they do not conflict with that need. These are: the views of the employer and of the union; existing national and local bargaining arrangements; the desirability of avoiding small fragmented bargaining units within an undertaking; the characteristics of workers falling within the proposed bargaining and of any other employees of the employer whom the CAC considers relevant and the location of workers. The Panel's decision has been taken after full and detailed consideration of the evidence and views of both Parties as expressed in their written submissions and amplified at the hearing.

18.    The Panel regards the Company's argument about fragmentation as persuasive, but not decisive. On the particular facts of this case, however, other considerations weigh heavily in favour of the bargaining unit proposed by the Company. The Panel accepts that there are no differences in the terms and conditions of employment between the production workers at Princeville and Allerton, bar the weekly bonus paid to one and potentially two specialised minders of the Sixers. As for the nature of the work at the two sites, it is virtually identical. In addition, the two sites are less than two miles apart, and there was no evidence of any difference in "culture" among the Princeville and Allerton production workers. Further, the fact that the two factory managers and most of the supervisors and engineers are required to rotate between Princeville and Allerton is indicative of an integrated management structure for the two sites.

19.    On the balance of the evidence, the Panel concludes that the appropriate bargaining unit is the one proposed by the Company. It is compatible with the need for effective management. In reaching this conclusion the Panel has also taken into account the matters listed at paragraph 19(4) of the Schedule so far as they do not conflict with that need. Furthermore, the Panel has considered the CAC's general duty under paragraph 171 of the Schedule and concluded that a decision in favour of the Company's proposed bargaining unit in this case will assist in the encouragement of fair and efficient workplace practices and arrangements.

DECISION

20.    The Panel's decision is that the appropriate bargaining unit is that proposed by the Company, that is, all production workers, including hygiene workers, at both the Allerton and Princeville sites, excluding supervisors, managers, office staff, drivers and engineers.

Panel Chair     Professor Roy Lewis

Members         Dennis Cameron

                       David Crowe

Date               5 June 2001

Appendix 1

List of those who attended the hearing:

Union - B F A W U

Ian Wood - West Yorkshire Organising District Secretary

Paul Grendon - Solicitor, Whittles Solicitors

Company - Seabrook Potato Crisps Ltd

Michael Tomlinson - General Director

Mark Henley - Counsel

Duncan Brockway - Solicitor, Praxis Partners Solicitors

Michael Tomlinson - General Director

Mark Henley - Counsel

Duncan Brockway - Solicitor, Praxis Partners Solicitors